Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

Actually, my view is "which part of 'no law' does Congrees not understand???" i think any regulation of speech via regulation of campaign limits is offensive ... but it is clear the unconstitutional part of this that has me and others hot around the collar is the provision that limits independent groups ability to speak out if it affects elections, within 60 days of election day.

It is also clear that the politicians in Congress are quite *fond* of the idea of limiting outside group spending, since it generally attacks *incumbents*. So this is an incumbent protection bill.

I was already fed up with the state and local GOP. Now I'm fed up with the national party too. War or no war, I'm sorry, he just lost my vote. Maybe it's time to move along to the New York State Conservative Party.

I guess I'm just surprised at how many of us (I throw myself in here) actually believed W was different.

He's first and foremost a politician. He has given some of the best speeches I've ever heard a president give after 9/11... but deep down he's no different (nor can he afford to be) than the presidents, congress-critters, senators, and other politicans before him.

Politics is about money and power...to think anything differently is foolhardy.

I immediately called Domenici's office and spelled my name, said I was registered Republican, in the state since 1972, this was the most disappointed I'd ever been with the senator and slammed the phone down so hard pieces of it flew. Put it back together, called our former congressman and unsuccessful 2000 senate candidate and kept my heart from jumping out of my chest and roaring along the phone wires to get his take. He said this way Tristani can't use the vote against him in the fall. I carefully put the phone up and erased any memory of an entire party.

There's a party that starts with R--but I just can't--dyslexia, Alzheimer's, FReementia deliria, for the life of me I just can't remember the name of that party.

I'll wrap a copy of the Constitution around a brick just in case I do.

Kids 17 and under should NOT be allowed to support candidates with money.....they are not self-sufficient, and it's a perfect way for family members to funnel money to candidates. Besides, they cannot even sign most contracts, etc....unless they are emancipated.....then maybe....but as long as ma and pa are paying the bills....NO WAY!

The President of the United States has just caved on Hays-Meehan, and has violated his oath of office to "preserve and protect the Constitution." That frees me to say what he should have done.

He should have gotten an Opinion from the Attorney General that the bill was unconstitutional. Then he should have signed the bill into law, but also instructed the Solicitor General to go into court that day, seeking an injuction against ANY use of or application of that law, pending Supreme Court review.

(The President directs the position taken by the Solicitor General, At least five times the SG has been directed not to defend a federal law, but to attack it instead, because the President believed it to be unconstitutional.)

Never, however, has any President both signed a law and directed the Solicitor General to attack it in court on the same day. This could have resulted in a Supreme Court decision striking the law BEFORE the November Election, which would have defanged the Democrats and vindicated the (mostly) Republicans who condemned this bill.

My colleagues and I will now seek to have this entire law declared unconstitutional. We will do that not for the sake of the dishonest President, but on behalf of the Constitution that is under attack.

I SAID THIS BEFORE, AND REPEAT IT NOW. IF WE DO NOT GET THIS LAW DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I WILL RESIGN FROM THE BAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND NEVER ENTER ITS BUILDING AGAIN.

This is terrible. Bush is killing the golden goose. I have been an unabashed supporter and my wife and I maxed out on donations to him last time. If he signs this, he's going to have to get that money somewhere else.

He gave his word twice, once in the campaign and once when he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Gee, how many times have I seen this scenerio and George W. Bush? Some "the-sky-is-falling" situation where "W" makes "the big stupid" mistake. And his base supporters are PO'd! And that's that! "See! He is stupid!"

Only to see him come up with some angle that gets him to where "we" want him to be. And where he said he was going in the first place.

Will this be his first major "political failure" since he entered politics? The silver bullet that does him in? Will this be the end of "W". The grand finale? Closing of the curtain? The final act?

Don't bet on it. Or, don't bet against him. If the past is any indicator of the future he will come out on top.

But if he signs this. Straight up. Even his James Carville types like me are going to be upset.

Never, however, has any President both signed a law and directed the Solicitor General to attack it in court on the same day. This could have resulted in a Supreme Court decision striking the law BEFORE the November Election, which would have defanged the Democrats and vindicated the (mostly) Republicans who condemned this bill

Actually this bill goes into effect 1 day after the November 2002 election doesn't it?

Does anyone remember that this CFR nonsense all started as political cover for the Democrats who utterly violated then-existing campaign finance law? It's all a Grand Sham, political smoke and mirrors.

This soon-to-be law has a provision, like the first CFR, which requires it to be "accelerated on the dockets" of the one trial court and then the Supreme Court. The first such case, Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, was decided by the Supreme Court roughly six months after it started in the trial court.

Expect this case to be filed, as was Buckley on the effective date of the law, That is 6 November, 2002, for this one. Expect the final decision, therefore, in May, give or take a few weeks.

Campaign contributions about getting a message OUT.. and hoping that others will agree with your message.. it is NOT about buying votes.. so really I see no connection between "voting age" and campaign contributions.. unless of course you are trying to tell your kids that they are not allowed to have an OPINION or a MESSAGE until they are 18.... my 5yr old has MANY opinions.. some of which I hope she keeps for life, and some of which I hope she changes when she matures.....

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.